4 ms·

Designing for the stupid users also makes life easier for the smart users. No matter what you are designing. It makes your product better.

matkoniecz 2mo ago
Sometimes, not always. It may result in power users losing some features.
- carlosjobim 2mo ago
  Sure, but whenever you can make life easier for those who have are having hard time without making life harder for those who aren't, you should do it. For example, no power user benefits from having to use work arounds to make a product function. It's an annoyance to them, and it's an insurmountable obstacle to others.
  - matkoniecz 2mo ago
    Oh, I agree with that. Just dispute claim that any improvement for newbies is improving things also for experts.
- DrewADesign 2mo ago
  Not necessarily. Interface design is a communication medium. A skilled designer can often communicate to multiple types of users solving different types of problems. When an interface is “dumbed down,” it’s usually because a non-designer was trying to ‘clean it up’ or make it pretty by removing what they didn’t need and ignoring what everybody else needs. It’s difficult, and that’s why it’s a distinct field with its own degrees and professional programs.
  - matkoniecz 2mo ago
    The claim was broader, specifically "Designing for the stupid users also makes life easier for the smart users. No matter what you are designing" it can be in fact improvement for both but in many cases it is not
steveBK123 2mo ago
Wild to me and speaks volumes of HN/SWEs that this is getting downvoted.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ragall 2mo ago
That's trivially false. There's a large difference between products designed primarily to have a low learning curve, and products designed to maximize the efficiency of users that have been trained in its use.
- carlosjobim 2mo ago
  The only products which should have any mandatory learning curve are products which actually allow an expert to do something out of the ordinarily, which simply could not be done with an easy to use product. Such as some musical instruments. Otherwise, you can most of the time make a product which can be easy to use for novices while retaining maximum efficiency for experts.
  - ragall 2mo ago
    Compare a professional trader's UI to something consumer-grade like Robinhood, or analytics UIs designed for marketers (exposing only a few cute graphs with a handful of predefined parameters) to the dashboards used in physics labs, or simple graphics programs vs. Blenders. Maximum efficiency for experts requires removing information that would be distracting and redundant for them, but essential for novices to understand the working model of the program, so you're pretty much wrong.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]

matkoniecz 2mo ago

Sometimes, not always. It may result in power users losing some features.

carlosjobim 2mo ago
Sure, but whenever you can make life easier for those who have are having hard time without making life harder for those who aren't, you should do it. For example, no power user benefits from having to use work arounds to make a product function. It's an annoyance to them, and it's an insurmountable obstacle to others.
- matkoniecz 2mo ago
  Oh, I agree with that. Just dispute claim that any improvement for newbies is improving things also for experts.
DrewADesign 2mo ago
Not necessarily. Interface design is a communication medium. A skilled designer can often communicate to multiple types of users solving different types of problems. When an interface is “dumbed down,” it’s usually because a non-designer was trying to ‘clean it up’ or make it pretty by removing what they didn’t need and ignoring what everybody else needs. It’s difficult, and that’s why it’s a distinct field with its own degrees and professional programs.
- matkoniecz 2mo ago
  The claim was broader, specifically "Designing for the stupid users also makes life easier for the smart users. No matter what you are designing" it can be in fact improvement for both but in many cases it is not

steveBK123 2mo ago

Wild to me and speaks volumes of HN/SWEs that this is getting downvoted.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

ragall 2mo ago

That's trivially false. There's a large difference between products designed primarily to have a low learning curve, and products designed to maximize the efficiency of users that have been trained in its use.

carlosjobim 2mo ago
The only products which should have any mandatory learning curve are products which actually allow an expert to do something out of the ordinarily, which simply could not be done with an easy to use product. Such as some musical instruments. Otherwise, you can most of the time make a product which can be easy to use for novices while retaining maximum efficiency for experts.
- ragall 2mo ago
  Compare a professional trader's UI to something consumer-grade like Robinhood, or analytics UIs designed for marketers (exposing only a few cute graphs with a handful of predefined parameters) to the dashboards used in physics labs, or simple graphics programs vs. Blenders. Maximum efficiency for experts requires removing information that would be distracting and redundant for them, but essential for novices to understand the working model of the program, so you're pretty much wrong.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]